All 4 DORA Pillars · EU Regulation 2022/2554

Every module.
One platform.

Here's what's inside DORA GRC — every module across all four pillars, with screenshots showing what it looks like in practice. No demo calls required.

Overview

DORA Compliance Dashboard

When you log in, you see your overall compliance score, open risks, active incidents, and testing gaps — all on one screen. A setup checklist walks you through the first steps. Most teams have the core modules running within a week.

DORA GRC — Compliance Dashboard
Overview
Dashboard
Pillar 1
Governance
CIF Register
Assets
Pillar 2
Risk Register
Incidents
Pillar 3
🔬Testing
Pillar 4
Providers
// overview
DORA Compliance Dashboard
Live compliance status across all four DORA pillars
Overall Score
73%
All pillars weighted
High/Critical Risks
4
Require attention
ICT Assets
31
Registered
Open Incidents
2
Under management
Tests Passed
8
Past 12 months
Pillar Compliance Progress All pillars
① Governance
82%
② Risk
68%
③ Testing
55%
④ Third Party
71%
1
🏛

ICT Governance & Risk Framework

Assign roles, build your three-tier policy structure, register critical functions, and track assets. 7 modules covering Art. 5–9.

Art. 5–6CIFBIARTS 2024/1774
2
⚠️

Risk Management & Incident Reporting

Risk register, threat scenarios, bowtie analysis, control library, and full incident lifecycle from first log to regulatory report.

Art. 9–19ISO 27005BowtieITS 2024/2956
3
🔬

Digital Operational Resilience Testing

The coverage matrix shows which CIF functions are tested and which have gaps. Separate TLPT module for entities required to run threat-led pen tests.

Art. 24–25TLPTTIBER-EUCoverage Matrix
4
🔗

Third-Party ICT Risk & Oversight

Track suppliers, check contracts, flag concentration risk, send due diligence questionnaires, and export the Register of Information for the regulator.

Art. 28–30CTPPROI / ITSXBRL
Pillar 1 · Art. 5–9 · RTS 2024/1774

ICT Governance & Frameworks

Seven modules covering governance roles, ICT policy structure, critical function classification, asset inventory, business impact, and compliance tracking. Start here — the CIF Register you build in Pillar 1 drives requirements across every other pillar.

Governance Register · Art. 5
// Art. 5 · Management Body
Governance Register
RoleNameDORA Art.ReviewStatus
CISOE. LarsenArt. 5(2)(a)2025-03-01Active
CIOM. BjørnsenArt. 5(2)(b)2025-03-01Active
DPOA. StrandArt. 5(2)(c)2025-06-15Review Due
ICT Risk OfficerK. DahlArt. 5(2)(f)2025-03-15Active
Board Member (ICT)P. EriksenArt. 5(2)(j)2025-09-01New
Governance Roles

Management Body Accountability

Attach every Art. 5 obligation to a named person with a review date. When a review is overdue, it flags on the dashboard — you catch it before an auditor does.

  • Named accountability per DORA Art. 5(2) requirement
  • Review date tracking with overdue alerts
  • DORA article reference per role
  • Export for board packs
ICT Risk Framework

Three-Level Policy Architecture

DORA and RTS 2024/1774 require three tiers of ICT documentation. This module tracks what's in place, what's approved, and what's missing — with a completeness percentage you can show auditors.

  • Level 1 Policies (Board), Level 2 Guidelines (Management), Level 3 Routines (Owners)
  • Completeness score with gap highlighting
  • Owner assignment and approval status
  • Mapped to RTS 2024/1774 article references
ICT Risk Framework · RTS 2024/1774
Level 1 — Policy
Level 2 — Guidelines
Level 3 — Routines
Overall Completeness
78%
14 approved4 gaps
DocumentLevelOwnerStatus
ICT Risk PolicyL1BoardApproved
Cybersecurity GuidelinesL2CISOApproved
Patch Management RoutineL3Ops LeadIn Review
Incident Response ProcedureL3SOC LeadGap
CIF Register · Art. 3(22)
Total Functions
12
Critical
5
Important
7
Outsourced
8
FunctionCriticalityProviderOutsourcedRTO
Core BankingCriticalFIS GlobalYes4h
Payment ProcessingCriticalNets A/SYes2h
KYC/AML EngineImportantInternalNo8h
Customer PortalImportantAWSYes1h
Market Data FeedCriticalBloombergYes30m
CIF Register · Art. 3(22)

Critical & Important Functions

Once you classify functions here as critical or important, the testing gaps, provider oversight obligations, and incident severity thresholds all connect to it automatically. You enter the data once — it works across every pillar.

  • Criticality tier with RTO/RPO per function
  • Outsourced functions flagged for Art. 30 obligations
  • Provider links feed directly into Pillar 4
  • Dependency map for visualising function chains
  • Business impact scores derived from CIF tier
Pillar 2 · Art. 9–23 · ISO 27005

Risk Management & Incident Reporting

Nine modules covering risk assessment, threat scenarios, controls, heatmap, bowtie analysis, and the full incident lifecycle. Use the guided wizard for structured assessments, or quick-add to log risks fast. Incidents go from first entry to regulatory report without leaving the platform.

Risk Register · Art. 9–10
Critical
2
High
4
Medium/Low
11
Risk IDDescriptionScoreTreatmentDecision
R-001Ransomware — core banking20 CritMitigate⚠ Exceeds
R-002Cloud outage — customer portal15 HighTransfer✓ Within
R-003Insider threat — privileged access16 CritMitigate⚠ Exceeds
R-004API key exposure12 HighMitigate✓ Within
Risk Heatmap · 5×5 Matrix
Impact →
Likelihood →
R-001
R-002
R-003
R-004
Low Medium High Critical
Risk Register Features
  • 6-step guided assessment wizard (ISO 27005 / NIST SP 800-30)
  • Inherent vs. residual scoring with appetite comparison
  • Batch CSV export for auditors
Bowtie Analysis

Bowtie Risk Analysis

Each risk can have a bowtie diagram: threats on the left, what happens if it materialises on the right, and the controls sitting between them. It's useful for explaining complex risk scenarios to a board that doesn't want to read a table of numbers.

  • Threats → Preventive controls → Risk event → Recovery controls → Consequences
  • Linked to Risk Register and Control Library
  • Control effectiveness scoring per barrier
  • Escalation pathway mapped visually
Bowtie Analysis · R-001
RISK EVENT: Ransomware — Core Banking System
🎯 Phishing email
P
🔑 Cred stuffing
P
💾 Supply chain
P
💥
Ransomware Encryption
R-001 · Critical
R
📉 Service outage
R
💸 Financial loss
R
📋 DORA reporting
P Preventive barrier R Recovery control
Incident Register · Art. 17–23
Major
1
Significant
1
Resolved
14
Reported
3
INC-2025-007 — Payment processing disruption (240 min)
2025-02-18 · Major · Initial Report Sent · RCA Pending
INC-2025-006 — API authentication bypass attempt
2025-02-09 · Significant · Contained · 4.2h MTTR
INC-2025-005 — MFA service degradation
2025-01-31 · Minor · Resolved · 1.1h MTTR
Incident Register · Art. 17

Incident Reporting

When an incident comes in, the Classification Wizard applies the Art. 18 severity criteria and tells you whether it's major, significant, or minor. Major incidents open the regulatory reporting workflow with the correct ITS 2024/2956 templates — initial, intermediate, and final reports.

  • Automatic classification using DORA Art. 18 criteria
  • Initial / Intermediate / Final report templates
  • MTTR and MTBF statistics per incident type
  • Root cause and corrective action tracking
  • Regulatory reporting status tracked per incident
Pillar 3 · Art. 24–27

Digital Operational Resilience Testing

Two modules. The testing programme pulls in your CIF functions and tracks which test types have been run in the past 12 months — gaps show up automatically without any manual checking. If you're required to run TLPT, the second module tracks the five-phase lifecycle from scoping to authority sign-off.

Testing Programme · Art. 24–25
Tests Done
8
In Progress
3
Findings Open
5
CIF Coverage
67%
Total
14
CIF Function Coverage MatrixArt. 24(1) — annual obligation
CIF Function Vuln ScanOpen-srcPen TestScen TestBCPDRTLPT
Core Banking !
Payment Processing !
KYC/AML Engine ! !
Customer Portal
Tested ≤12mo Scheduled ! Gap
Testing Programme

CIF Coverage Matrix

Each row is a CIF function. Each column is one of the seven DORA test types. Green means tested in the last 12 months, yellow means scheduled, red means gap. As you log test results, the matrix updates — no spreadsheet needed.

  • All 7 test types: vulnerability scan, open-source analysis, pen test, scenario, BCP, DR, TLPT
  • Rolling 12-month window — gaps flagged automatically
  • Independent tester name recorded per test
  • Findings register linked to each test
  • CIF functions pulled directly from the CIF Register
TLPT Tracker · Art. 26–27

TLPT Lifecycle Tracker

If your entity is required to run threat-led penetration tests, this tracks all five phases: scoping, threat intelligence, red team execution, blue team debrief, and final attestation. Everything in one place instead of across email threads and PDFs.

  • 5-phase TLPT lifecycle per Art. 26 / TIBER-EU
  • Competent authority notification tracked per engagement
  • Red team and blue team scope recorded
  • Remediation actions logged and tracked post-TLPT
TLPT Tracker · Art. 26
TLPT-2025-001 · Scope: Core Banking + Payment Processing
1
Preparation & Scoping
Completed 2025-01-15 · Authority notified · RED team contracted
Done
2
Threat Intelligence
Completed 2025-02-01 · Threat profile approved by CISO
Done
3
Red Team Testing
In progress · Est. completion 2025-03-20
Active
4
Blue Team Debrief & Closure
Planned · Q2 2025
Pending
5
Attestation & Authority Sign-off
Planned · Q2 2025
Pending
Pillar 4 · Art. 28–44

Third-Party ICT Risk Management

Five modules. The provider register is where you track ICT suppliers and what they support. From there you can check contract clauses, run due diligence questionnaires, monitor concentration risk, and export the Register of Information for your regulator in XBRL/XML format.

Provider Register · Art. 28(3) · ITS 2024/2956
Total
12
CIF-Supporting
7
CTPP
1
Contract Gaps
3
Exit Plans
5/7
ProviderCountryTypeCIFCTPPContract
Microsoft AzureIE 🇮🇪Cloud IaaSYesYes✓ Complete
FIS GlobalUS 🇺🇸Core BankingYesNo3 Gaps
Nets A/SDK 🇩🇰PaymentYesNo✓ Complete
Bloomberg LPUS 🇺🇸Market DataYesNo1 Gap
Cisco SystemsUS 🇺🇸NetworkNoNo✓ Complete
Provider Register

Provider Register

When a provider is linked to a CIF function, the platform automatically flags the DORA obligations: the eight Art. 30 contract clauses, the exit plan requirement, and the LEI. You can look up legal entity data via GLEIF to fill in provider details without typing.

  • LEI lookup via GLEIF — fills provider details automatically
  • CTPP designation tracking against the ESA oversight list
  • 8-clause Art. 30 contract compliance checker
  • Exit strategy status per CIF-supporting provider
  • Concentration risk linked to provider view
Concentration Risk · Art. 29
% of CIF functions supported — threshold: 40%
Azure / MS
58%
⚠ 58%
FIS Global
42%
⚠ 42%
Nets A/S
25%
25%
Bloomberg
17%
17%
AWS
8%
⚠ 2 providers exceed the 40% concentration threshold — report to management body required (Art. 29)
Vendor Questionnaires
Due diligence questionnaires — sent via email, scored automatically
Microsoft Azure — DORA Template (28Q) 82% — Low Risk
Security Controls
90%
Data Handling
75%
FIS Global — ISO 27001 Template (24Q) 54% — Medium Risk
Incident Response
50%
Business Continuity
58%
Cisco Systems — Cloud Template (20Q) 31% — High Risk
Access Control
30%
Encryption
33%
3 questionnaire templates: DORA (28Q), ISO 27001 (24Q), Cloud (20Q) · Vendors complete via a token-gated public form, no login required
Workflow & Reporting

Board Reports, Audit Logs & Export

The board report is generated from live data — no copying numbers into a slide deck. The audit log records every change with a timestamp and username, so you can show exactly what happened and when. Full data export for external auditors in JSON; Register of Information in XBRL/XML.

Board Report — Auto-generated
DORA Compliance Report — Q1 2025
For Management Body · Confidential
Generated: 2025-03-05
DORA GRC Platform
Executive Summary
73%
Overall Score
2
Critical Risks
1
Major Incident
67%
Test Coverage
Pillar Status
① Governance
82%
② Risk
68%
③ Testing
55%
④ Third Party
71%
Audit Log
Tamper-evident log · All actions attributed to named users
09:42:17 e.larsen Updated risk treatment on R-001 Ransomware → Mitigate
09:38:02 k.dahl Created incident report INC-2025-007
09:21:44 m.bjørns Approved framework document ICT Risk Policy v2.1
08:55:11 e.larsen Added provider Cisco Systems to Provider Register
08:30:00 system Sent vendor questionnaire to [email protected] (VQ-004)
JSON export User attribution Tamper-evident RBAC
📊

Board Report

Pulls live data from all four pillars into a board-ready report. Generate it any time — scores, open risks, active incidents, and what's changed. No slides to update manually.

Task Manager

Assign tasks to team members, link them to specific risks or incidents, and set due dates. Overdue tasks show up on the dashboard — nothing gets lost in email or a shared spreadsheet.

Data Export

Export all registers as a timestamped, user-attributed JSON file for external auditors. The Register of Information exports in XBRL/XML format for direct submission under ITS 2024/2956.

Try it yourself

Want to see it with your own data?

Most teams get the core modules set up in their first week. No implementation partner, no lengthy onboarding.

Access Platform → View Pricing